Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1, 9 and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 7/15/2026 with respect to claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12,15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’ORO et al. (US. Pub. No. 2024/0378506 A1) in view of Petkar (US. Pub. No. 2024/0187159 A1) and further in view of Luthra et al. (US. Pub. No. 2024/0184980 A1).
Regarding claim 1, D’ORO discloses a method for fallout handling associated with zero-touch provisioning (ZTP) of open radio access network (O-RAN) components associated with cell sites (See Par. [18], [71] of D’ORO for a reference to methods and systems for zero-touch deployment and orchestration of network intelligence in Open RAN (O-RAN) systems which provide innovative, automated, and scalable solutions to fallout, including automated intelligence orchestration framework for the O-RAN implemented by a base station [Cell Site]), the method comprising:
causing, via one or more processors, operations to be performed that are associated with a component within a cell site, wherein the cell site comprises O-RAN components from different vendors/manufacturers(See D’ORO; Fig. 13; RAN Intelligent Controller (RICs) 101 & 105) (See Par. [21], [66], [71], [132] of D’ORO for a reference to managing failure of a plurality of O-Rus and O-DUs in an O-RAN network comprising O-RAN components from multi-vendors);
D'ORO does not explicitly disclose receiving, via the one or more processors, an error code generated by the component; identifying, via the one or more processors and based at least in part on the error code, one or more second operations to resolve the error; and
causing, via the one or more processors, the one or more second operations to be
performed within the O-RAN network.
However, Petkar discloses receiving, via the one or more processors, an error code generated by the component (See Par. [25]-[26], [41], [44] of Petkar for a reference to receiving a log file that include various types of test related data, including test session metrics, error typers, error codes, status messages from base station 110 , generated by the O-RAN components);
identifying, via the one or more processors and based at least in part on the error code, one or more second operations to resolve the error (See Par. [25]-[26], [41], [46] of Petkar for a reference to troubleshooting error codes, and/ determining resolution recommendations for resolving various errors or issues. after an error or issue is selected, based on the received error code, a resolution recommendation may include instructions for resolving the detected error); and
causing, via the one or more processors, the one or more second operations to be
performed within the O-RAN network (See Par. [41]-[42], [46], [71] of Petkar for a reference to troubleshooting error codes by performing at least one of the resolution recommendation to resolve the detected error).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petkar to D’ORO. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving testing and related configuration through selecting and manipulating parameters of captured IQ signals to identify root causes of the system’s errors and issues. (Petkar; Par. [21])
The combination of D’ORO and Petkar does not explicitly disclose determining that the error code represents a soft fallout or a hard fallout; programmatically pausing execution of an active zero-touch provisioning workflow upon identifying determining that the error code represents a hard fallout; and programmatically resuming execution of the zero-touch provisioning workflow upon verifying the error has been resolved.
However, Luthra discloses determining that the error code represents a soft fallout or a hard fallout (See Par. [43], [51], [62], [103], [215] of Luthra for a reference to detecting a fault and determining whether it is a software fault [Pod container failure] or a hardware fault [Fan failure]); programmatically pausing execution of an active zero-touch provisioning workflow upon identifying determining that the error code represents a hard fallout (See Par. [97], [212]-[215] of Luthra for a reference to stopping the fault resolving process, including ZTP workflow, in the case of detecting a hardware fault); and programmatically resuming execution of the zero-touch provisioning workflow upon verifying the error has been resolved (See Par. [68]-[70], [103] of Luthra for a reference to restarting/resuming the fault resolving process, including ZTP workflow, in the case of resolving the detected fault).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Luthra to the combination of D’ORO and Petkar. The motivation of combination is to improve the system’s performance, by providing efficient and prompt handling of all changes/faults to control IT infrastructure, to minimize the number and impact of any related incidents upon service. (Luthra; Par. [21]).
Regarding claim 4, D’ORO does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the one or more second operations to resolve the error comprises accessing data that includes a plurality of different operations associated with resolving a plurality of different errors associated with the O-RAN components from the different vendors/manufacturers.
However, Petkar discloses wherein identifying the one or more second operations to resolve the error comprises accessing data that includes a plurality of different operations associated with resolving a plurality of different errors associated with the O-RAN components from the different vendors/manufacturers (See Par. [40]-[42], [49], [53] of Petkar for a reference to accessing log file and troubleshooting report including various types of test related data, including test session metrics, error types, error codes, status messages from base station 110, as well as various resolution recommendations for resolving various errors or issues associated by the O-RAN components).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petkar to D’ORO. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving testing and related configuration through selecting and manipulating parameters of captured IQ signals to identify root causes of the system’s errors and issues. (Petkar; Par. [21])
Regarding claim 8, the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra, specifically D’ORO discloses wherein the component is at least one of a radio unit (RU), a distributed unit (DU), or a cell site router (CSR) (See Par. [21], [66], [132] of D’ORO for a reference to the system includes an Open RAN having a plurality of Open RAN components including at least one of a centralized unit (CU), a distributed unit (DU), and a radio unit (RU)).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1, including a computer system (See D’ORO; Fig. 2; A system of O-RAN network architecture having OrchestRAN) including one or more electronic processors (See D’ORO; Fig. 13; RAN Intelligent Controller (RICs) 101 & 105).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium (See Par. [74] of D’ORO for a reference to a storage readable medium storing instructions to be executed by the processor).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 4.
6. Claims 2, 5-7, 10, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’ORO et al. in view of Petkar in view of Luthra et al. and further in view of Plakkatt et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0289690 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra does not explicitly disclose identifying, via the one or more processors, a vendor/manufacturer of the component and a type of the error based on the error code.
However, Plakkatt discloses wherein identifying, via the one or more processors, a vendor/manufacturer of the component and a type of the error based on the error code (See Par. [62]-[64] of Plakkatt for a reference to the Fallout Management Engine (FAME) analyzes fallout data including event data, point of failure (POF) data and performs data classification on the first set of data, by providing data labelling to the first set of data based at least in part on type of data [This includes identifying the source (vendor/component type) and error classification from received error data]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Plakkatt to the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by providing higher customer satisfaction, data quality at portal, and turnaround from a customer experience perspective; and service scalability and self-learning, minimal touchpoints when using FAME for Fallout identification, management, and resolution. (Plakkatt; Par. [35])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the one or more second operations to resolve the error comprises determining a playbook that includes the second operations to resolve the error.
However, Plakkatt discloses wherein identifying the one or more second operations to resolve the error comprises determining a playbook that includes the second operations to resolve the error (See Par. [70]-[73] of Plakkatt for a reference to the FAME generates one or more automated repair protocols, which constitute a playbook of operations. The system generates a dynamic prioritization map for resolving the identified fallout event. [A structured sequence of remediation steps functionally equivalent to a playbook that includes the second operations to resolve a particular error]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Plakkatt to the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by providing higher customer satisfaction, data quality at portal, and turnaround from a customer experience perspective; and service scalability and self-learning, minimal touchpoints when using FAME for Fallout identification, management, and resolution. (Plakkatt; Par. [35])
Regarding claim 6, D’ORO does not explicitly disclose wherein the second operations are determined using a testing platform.
However, Petkar discloses wherein the second operations are determined using a testing platform (See Par. [45]-[47], [70] of Petkar for a reference to a test platform is implemented to determine which resolution recommendation [Second operation] is more appropriate to resolve a specific error type).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petkar to D’ORO. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving testing and related configuration through selecting and manipulating parameters of captured IQ signals to identify root causes of the system’s errors and issues. (Petkar; Par. [21])
Regarding claim 7, the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra does not explicitly disclose wherein the testing platform tests each of different types of components within the O-RAN network and is used to generate playbooks that include information used to resolve the error.
However, Plakkatt discloses wherein the testing platform tests each of different types of components within the O-RAN network and is used to generate playbooks that include information used to resolve the error (See Par. [82]-[86] of Plakkatt for a reference that the simulation/testing process is repeated one or more times with different dynamic point of failure (POF) data for different components, and is used to anticipate, and to recommend fixes for, potential fallout events before they occur. This corresponds to a testing platform that tests each type of component and generates playbooks (repair protocols) containing information used to resolve errors).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Plakkatt to the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by providing higher customer satisfaction, data quality at portal, and turnaround from a customer experience perspective; and service scalability and self-learning, minimal touchpoints when using FAME for Fallout identification, management, and resolution. (Plakkatt; Par. [35])
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 6.
7. Claims 3, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’ORO et al. in view of Petkar in view of Luthra et al. and further in view of Sudletsky et al. (US. Pat. No. 11,838,169 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra does not explicitly disclose wherein the different vendors/manufacturers include a first vendor that supplied a first portion of the O-RAN components; and a second vendor that supplied a second portion of the O-RAN components.
However, Sudletsky discloses wherein the different vendors/manufacturers include a first vendor that supplied a first portion of the O-RAN components; and a second vendor that supplied a second portion of the O-RAN components (See Col. 2, L. 30–48 of Sudletsky for a reference to the a multi-vendor O-RAN network with SMO, DU, and RU components from different vendors. A radio access network may include first and second hardware systems and the RAN elements operate in accordance with one or more open R(O-RAN) specifications [components are from multiple different manufacturers within the same cell site]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sudletsky to the combination of D’ORO, Petkar and Luthra. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by reducing the signalling overhead and providing a quick and efficient system for handling and processing data . (Sudletsky; Col. 6, L. 1–20)
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 3.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mishra et al. (US. Pub. No. 2025/0138937 A1) discloses systems and techniques for implementing resiliency, redundancy, and self-healing for a containerized edge compute unit (a containerized edge data center unit).
Sridhar et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0224614 A1) discloses a fast optical switch into a high port count mechanical optical switch to provide fast protection services.
Sverdlov et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0089237 A1) discloses systems and methods for assembling vehicles that are designed for robotic production.
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights